Whispers of Surrender in Afghanistan?

reply to post by bigyin Yeah, well call them what they are then: lads, lassies, blokes, hens, squadies... they're not "guys". Have some respect.

Originally posted by mmiichael

Originally posted by PersonalChoice
Well it doesn't surprise me at all, our whole approach to the entire endeavor was either severely flawed or had objectives that were/are only known to the planners and were most likely achieved early on.

We were told it was to take down the Taliban for harboring OBL, capture or kill OBL, and wipe out AQ.

Yet the Taliban is still strong enough to negotiate a cease fire/withdrawal.

Yet OBL was never captured and may still be alive and well.

Yet AQ is not only still around and fighting, but have gained much more support and credibility.

No doubt they will become even stronger if this whole fiasco ends like the OP reports it may.

What the US government allows to be filtered to the media and what they are actually working on are often very different.

This does not mean deceiving the public so much as holding their cards to themsleves. There is no benefit for any country to blab about it's strategies and tip off it's competiors and enemies.

Weeks before 9/11 the US had a serious row with the Taliban who had made guarantees to provide security a new pipeline planned fo Afghanistan. Other factors but essentially the US said they'd come in if the Taliban did not comply.


Protection of bin Laden was the spark that set off the US invasion.

((snip))

Protection of bin Laden?.. eh? the taliban offered to turn over bin laden, they asked to see evidence of his guilt... of course the bush had nothing to offer but propaganda and the unsupported claim "We know he's guilty.."

Hilarious that the blood thirsty terrorist taliban boogie-men were being reasonable while the bush and his neo-clown lackeys were not in their callous march to send other peoples kids to kill people 1/2 across the world from US soil.

The US govt asks for evidence before turning over suspects, the taliban were following 'the rules'... and I doubt the US would turn anyone over to a nation that claims to "know" guilt in a death penalty case prior to fair due process.

Afghanistan is where empires go to die, the US has no choice but to negotiate some type of face saving deal.. or continue bleeding out resources there forever. The afhgan-cong are going nowhere and will kill occupiers as long as there are occupiers there to kill.

"... The Taliban responded to Bush’s demand by asking him to furnish evidence of bin Laden’s complicity in the 9/11 attacks. Upon receipt of such evidence, they offered to turn him over to an independent tribunal instead of the United States.

www.fff.org...

"We know he's guilty. Turn him over," Bush said. Some Afghan experts argue that throughout the negotiations, the United States never recognized the Taliban need for aabroh, the Pashtu word for "face-saving formula." Officials never found a way to ease the Taliban's fear of embarrassment if it turned over a fellow Muslim to an "infidel" Western power."

Links to Washington Post:
www.infowars.com...

reply to post by mmiichael No mmiichael, the best solution would be to get the f# out of there & let them sort it out for themselves or rot. Of course, that would require cutting off their income, which would require the legalisation of drugs, so it was no longer profitable to grow them so far from the point of sale, in dodgy countries. Er... I can see a few problems developing already... None that couldn't be overcome by a little reality acceptance, but still, I'm not hopeful.
The USA is broke tho. Y'all are sick of war for no discernable righteous purpose.
How about a DMZ? Worked once, not so good 2nd time, but this time y'all have UN support, huh? Just keep the UN there for a decade or so & Iran will have collapsed under Western funded Sedition; then nobody will care about Afghanistan anymore. F# it! Let the Chinese have the place now, we've consolidated control of all the major oil deposits left on Earth! Ha! What losers they are! To think, they tried to stop us by bankrupting us! We're the USA: we are the BANK!
Yeah, think again PNAC supporters. You know what those UN troops are doing there? Getting some training, thats all. If it comes to a proper showdown with China, they'll be on the 1st plane home.

Originally posted by mmiichael
The best hope is that Afghanistan can start to have a real government that implements basic services, education, a more equitable distribution of revenues, an effective national military, strategic alliances with neighbouring states. Tall order but it has to start somewhere.M

I don't think you get there by occupying the country and trying to press change. The Russians couldn't do it and they didn't play near as nice as us. You pegged the real issues...pipelines and opium. Osama? you know that the FBI most wanted list doesn't even mention him in regards to 9/11? Hmmmm...

This war is making a pike of dough for some, misery for others, and we are paying the tab...with taxes and lives.

Time to get out. If we're just gonna bribe them to be good, why get killed too?

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

I don't think you get there by occupying the country and trying to press change. The Russians couldn't do it and they didn't play near as nice as us. You pegged the real issues...pipelines and opium. Osama? you know that the FBI most wanted list doesn't even mention him in regards to 9/11? Hmmmm...

This war is making a pike of dough for some, misery for others, and we are paying the tab...with taxes and lives.

Time to get out. If we're just gonna bribe them to be good, why get killed too?

Good up to a point in your analysis. Bin Laden and FBI A really ancient harcore Truther claim. No Osama bin Laden's picture isn't on WANTED posters in Post Offices. Has to do enforcement jurisdictions - with him never having stepped foot in the US, not being an American citizen, committing crimes from another part of the world. Wanted by Interpol, NSA, CIA, MI6, dozens of other law enforcement agencies.

Wars haven't been profitable for decades. Just the usual fallout of smaller scale exploitation an profiteering. Cheaper to cut advantageous resource deals with compliant regimes.

Most on this list have never spent time in that part of the world or know much about the Taliban beyond what they read in their chosen political bias sources.

Life over there isn't simple. Imagine a world of sheer lawlessness? You can wipe out an entire village, kill whoever you want for whatever reason - no one cares.
Again, our models of government aren't applicable to many regions.
At any time, hundreds of thousands live near the edge of starvation and imminent death. Whoever offers them something resembling stability is welcomed with open arms.

The Taliban did good things for some, at some points, bad this for others at other times. Nothing is static. Political groups rely on behind the scenes funding and weapons supplying. Whoever is the current patron gets what they want.

Below the surface the Saudis and Turks have been maintaining their interests along with Americans and Europeans, The situation ans logistics change year to year.

It's more about carving up the Opium trade and making a pipeline secure than who is the figurehead leader.

Current working scenario - from someone who 'knows' the Taliban as opposed to reading blogs about them - they're worn down and broke.
Will take Western money, act like good little boys for a while. Then find some reason to get out of whatever arrangement is cooked, and the fighting will start up again. Suspense is who will offer the most money and on what terms.


M









[edit on 24-11-2009 by mmiichael]

Originally posted by mmiichael

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

I don't think you get there by occupying the country and trying to press change. The Russians couldn't do it and they didn't play near as nice as us. You pegged the real issues...pipelines and opium. Osama? you know that the FBI most wanted list doesn't even mention him in regards to 9/11? Hmmmm...

Good up to a point in your analysis. Bin Laden and FBI A really ancient harcore Truther claim. No Osama bin Laden's picture isn't on WANTED posters in Post Offices. Has to do enforcement jurisdictions - with him never having stepped foot in the US, not being an American citizen, committing crimes from another part of the world. Wanted by Interpol, NSA, CIA, MI6, dozens of other law enforcement agencies.

Sorry, you're wrong...he is on the '10 most wanted list'...but no mention of 9/11.

CAUTION USAMA BIN LADEN IS WANTED IN CONNECTION WITH THE AUGUST 7, 1998, BOMBINGS OF THE UNITED STATES EMBASSIES IN DAR ES SALAAM, TANZANIA, AND NAIROBI, KENYA. THESE ATTACKS KILLED OVER 200 PEOPLE. IN ADDITION, BIN LADEN IS A SUSPECT IN OTHER TERRORIST ATTACKS THROUGHOUT THE WORLD. CONSIDERED ARMED AND EXTREMELY DANGEROUS www.fbi.gov...

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
Sorry, you're wrong...he is on the '10 most wanted list'...but no mention of 9/11.

CAUTION USAMA BIN LADEN IS WANTED IN CONNECTION WITH THE AUGUST 7, 1998, BOMBINGS OF THE UNITED STATES EMBASSIES IN DAR ES SALAAM, TANZANIA, AND NAIROBI, KENYA. THESE ATTACKS KILLED OVER 200 PEOPLE. IN ADDITION, BIN LADEN IS A SUSPECT IN OTHER TERRORIST ATTACKS THROUGHOUT THE WORLD. CONSIDERED ARMED AND EXTREMELY DANGEROUS

Not going to quibble. But you may have noticed something happened since 1998 to escalate the Intelligence Services' concern over OBL.

There was this attack in Sept 2001. A number of other agencies worldwide have him on their lists. I don't think OBL will slip thorough the Net because the FBI hasn't put a 9/11 linkage on their list.

Could anyone possibly think this means they don't think he was involved?

Sounds like a good deal to me.

Originally posted by mmiichael
Of course this isn't always benign. It's rally about pipelines and the massive drug trade in Afghanistan. But if the US, UK, no one was there, things would not suddenly be peaceful and prosperous. It never was. The best hope is that Afghanistan can start to have a real government that implements basic services, education, a more equitable distribution of revenues, an effective national military, strategic alliances with neighbouring states.

Tall order but ut has to start somewhere.

M

Reality, and hope.

In your opinion, M, is the US role in Afghanistan also providing "security" for Chinese (mineral/oil) interests, for which the return is those ventures providing jobs/income, hence more stability, for Afghanis? Is there a US-Chinese "partnership"?

reply to post by Zaydie

I just find it hard to believe that the US would make this kind of deal.

I have it from impeccable sources (The Onion) that here is what Obama is actually considering:

Obama Weighs Options In Afghanistan

Pressure is mounting on President Obama to make a decision on the future of Afghanistan.

Here are the options currently being considered:

* Not only learn the lessons of Vietnam, but apply them as well
* Visit; act fascinated by their rugs
* Remove every American soldier; see if fighting continues
* Legalize gambling, as that's worked well domestically
* Thunderdome-style battle to the death between Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal and Afghanistan Taliban leader Mullah Omar
* Call the Taliban pretending to be the Prophet Muhammad and tell them to stop ambushing American soldiers
* Announce you're raising troop levels by 15,000, then pull everybody out, then come back with a half million soldiers, in the process convincing al-Qaeda that you're loco and not to be messed with
* Arm and finance a group of religious fighters
* Back the murderous drug-dealing warlord with the most government officials in his pocket

www.theonion.com...
Long live the Onion.

Originally posted by desert

In your opinion, M, is the US role in Afghanistan also providing "security" for Chinese (mineral/oil) interests, for which the return is those ventures providing jobs/income, hence more stability, for Afghanis? Is there a US-Chinese "partnership"?

The US and China operate as a co-ordinated unit on certain levels - almost all economics and trade. China btw isn't as wealthy and powerful as some like to believe. They could collapse in the next couple years.

Everything in foreign policy is multifactorial. The US also wants to be in Iraq and Afghanistan to contain Iran. Iran or Pakistan would fill the vacuum if the US and West pull out. Neither are not concerned with the welfare of the Afghanis and would want install a puppet govt. Iran and Pakistan economies are increasingly dependent of opium/heroin as is much of the Muslim world. It's far more profitable than oil.

China is also unsympathetic to the plight of indigenous people as we're seeing in their ruthless exploitations in Africa which makes British colonialism look like a tea party. They just want a foothold in this region.

There really is no Afghanistan except in the minds of Westerners. It's a former Ottoman Empire province, now an Islamic Republic in a perpetual state of civil war. The entire region operates tribalistically with warlords the local powers. Conflicts spill over national boundaries. The coup which the taliban seek is to get an internationally recognized govt going so you can milk foreign aid, skim trade revenues, sell resource contracts, etc.

No simple solutions except that Afghanistan as a country would benefit from finally having a rperesentative central govt to institute basics like education, infrastructures like a medical system, industry planning, road building, etc.

It will start with a bad govt but hopefully they will improve as people realize they actually have a choice in who runs the show.

The US is there not just be good guys or make a buck. It's also about preventative measures. Say there was an Iran-Pakistan-Afghanistan-Kazakhstan coalition with an arsenal of Pakistani and Iranian nukes itching to pressure India or wherever. A not unrealistic concern.

All very complicated and no easy answers.

Mike

I am a right wing Christian conservative, and despise appeasement, yet I see merit in this if proper verification measures can be put in place.

The so called war on terror should have been a focused war on the perpetrators, al Qaeda. The Taliban became a target because they refused to turn on their al-Qaeda guests, which of course would violate their warped version of Islam.

If they are changing their tune on Al-Qaeda, then it could mean an end to an eternal war that can not be won currently, because there is no real stated objective, unless that objective was war profiteering I suppose.

If the Taliban can be induced to turn on the terrorist scum that started this mess, and the war can be focused on targeting and removing al Qaeda, then this gives us some hope that we can declare victory and pull out.

Again the Ronald Reagan mantra, "Trust but Verify" must be applied.

This is what you get when you initiate a war based on lies, deceit and greed - ultimately, you end up getting your ass handed to you. Yeah, you can go in and fight those evildoers until your heart's content, but you cannot fight the laws of nature and karma.

How many innocent civilians (war mongering thugs like to call them collateral damage) have been killed because of this immoral invasion? How would you like it if a huge Muslim army with state of the art weapons invaded the USA and killed a large number of your friends and family over a situation you have no control over? Put yourself in their shoes and just try to imagine how they feel.

Maybe if the United States started showing some empathy and concern for their fellow man, their image around the globe would change. On the other hand, if they continue with this Draconian eye for an eye policy (only for the benefit of a select few scumbags), the entire country will end up being flushed down the toilet, just like every other great empire in the past.

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
How many innocent civilians (war mongering thugs like to call them collateral damage) have been killed because of this immoral invasion? How would you like it if a huge Muslim army with state of the art weapons invaded the USA and killed a large number of your friends and family over a situation you have no control over? Put yourself in their shoes and just try to imagine how they feel.

Maybe if the United States started showing some empathy and concern for their fellow man, their image around the globe would change. On the other hand, if they continue with this Draconian eye for an eye policy (only for the benefit of a select few scumbags), the entire country will end up being flushed down the toilet, just like every other great empire in the past.

Sure the US can stay isolated. They did with the Russian Revolution and Stalin. 30 Million dead.

They stayed out of China and Mao. 40 Million dead.

There are wars and people ding with and without American interference.

No American interference - do you think Russia, Iran, China are going to alos decide to stay neutral. Do you think local warlords are going to start being warm and compassionate.

What do you think would be going on in other parts of the world if the US stayed out of religious, land and resource driven regional conflicts.

6 billion people would be holding hands singing "Kumbaya"?


\M

Originally posted by mmiichael
Not going to quibble. But you may have noticed something happened since 1998 to escalate the Intelligence Services' concern over OBL.
There was this attack in Sept 2001. A number of other agencies worldwide have him on their lists. I don't think OBL will slip thorough the Net because the FBI hasn't put a 9/11 linkage on their list.
Could anyone possibly think this means they don't think he was involved?

Yes, I certainly heard about OBL and 9/11. I just find it interesting that he is not cited on the FBI website for his involvement in it. Bush wouldn't show proof to the Taliban, so they'd hand him over...could be a trial would be awkward.

But, you can provide whatever conjecture you like as to the 10 most wanted list, but at the end of the day, it's still just conjecture unless you can get an explanation from the FBI, right?

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
Yes, I certainly heard about OBL and 9/11. I just find it interesting that he is not cited on the FBI website for his involvement in it. Bush wouldn't show proof to the Taliban, so they'd hand him over...could be a trial would be awkward.

But, you can provide whatever conjecture you like as to the 10 most wanted list, but at the end of the day, it's still just conjecture unless you can get an explanation from the FBI, right?

Agreed. But I must add 9/11 not being anticipated was largely the fault of the FBI not forwarding and sharing information with the CIA, NSA, admin, other agencies.

There has been much intelligence done on OBL by many since. I don't think, no matter how deceptive the Bush admin was, his name not being on an FBI lisy is an indication of anything.

We do know, and nor just from official or American sources, that he personally was the primary money handler and co-ordinator of the operation.
Masssive amounts of data and evidence exists from money transfers, receipts, phone calls (one even a warning t his mother to lay low), etc. Testimony and confessions of numerous confederates, the biggest fish being primary planner Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

The Bush admin had much to hide on their dealing with the bin Laden family. But one has to remember they are not only the second wealthiest and prominent family in Saudi Arabia, Osama had more than 50 siblings. When you include his parents generation and their children, then the next generation down, often with may wives and many children - a few thousand bin Ladens running around.


M

reply to post by mmiichael

Agreed. But I must add 9/11 not being anticipated was largely the fault of the FBI not forwarding and sharing information with the CIA, NSA, admin, other agencies.

Actually, that was way after 9/11 plans had been put in motion. To blame the FBI is equivalent to blaming firemen for not saving a building when they are not notified until the building is almost completely burned down.
Ultimately, the CIA and the misguided decisions by the US government to support Bin Laden, when the Russians were in Afghanistan, are the ultimate cause of 9/11.
When you create a terrorist to fight your enemy, you can be sure that he will ultimately turn on you, once he has defeated the enemy.

Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
Actually, that was way after 9/11 plans had been put in motion. To blame the FBI is equivalent to blaming firemen for not saving a building when they are not notified until the building is almost completely burned down.

Ultimately, the CIA and the misguided decisions by the US government to support Bin Laden, when the Russians were in Afghanistan, are the ultimate cause of 9/11.

When you create a terrorist to fight your enemy, you can be sure that he will ultimately turn on you, once he has defeated the enemy.

The US being responsible for the rise of bin Laden is now taken as dogma by conspiracists. But it's not even remotely true. In the complex often shifting world of alliances the US, Britain, the Russians, the Saudis, the French - have all supplied every rebel and rogue group with funds and weapons at some juncture to further a campaign.

Bin Laden has always operated as an unofficial independent franchise of the Saudis, UAE, other members of the Sunni alliance. The deal was he gets backed as long as the Saudi royals aren't threatened or compromised.

There was a coinciding with US interests when the mujahadin were fighting the Russians in Afghanistan. History has moved on.

9/11 always was a terrorist plan to get the US to take the conflict to the Middle East home turf. And it worked. Bin Laden always deluded himself that he brought down the Soviet Empire. He wanted to bring down the US with a similar asymmetrical war of attrition.

We'll see how well it succeeds.


M

This is from the comments section:

Caitlin Hayden | November 24, 2009 5:37 AM | Reply

To whom it may concern:

There is no truth to reports that the U.S. Embassy is engaging in secret talks with elements of the Taliban. Our position on the inclusion of Taliban and other fighters into Afghan society remains unchanged: we support the efforts of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghan to reintegrate fighters and other disaffected individuals into society, under the Afghan constitution. This process must be Afghan-led.

Caitlin Hayden
U.S. Embassy Spokeswoman

threatswatch.org...

Caitlin Hayden


[edit on 2009/11/25 by GradyPhilpott]

Originally posted by jimmyx
i don't understand why if you pull troops out of a country...supposedly you have "lost".

This is good news!

It means that the U.S. did not lose the war in viet nam.



The reality is the how and why you pull your troops out of another country:

win - you pull them out because you accomplished your goals.

loss - you pull them out because you haven't, or you forgot or never knew what the goals were.

Originally posted by Bunken Drum
reply to post by bigyin

 

Yeah, well call them what they are then: lads, lassies, blokes, hens, squadies... they're not "guys". Have some respect.

Dude.. seriously.. see about getting your tablets stepped up.

Speak to Matron.